🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”